Alok Singh, J. - (1.) PRESENT petition is filed challenging order dated 20.01.2011 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, as well as, order dated 19.11.2009 (Annexure P/2) passed by Deputy Commissioner -cum -District Collector, Fatehgarh Sahib, thereby appointing respondent No.5 as Lambardar of Village Nabipur.
(2.) THE brief facts of the present case, inter -alia, are that Harijan Lambardar Karnal Singh died on 20.03.2005, therefore, post of Lambardar (Scheduled Caste) has fallen vacant; applications were invited to fill up the post of Lambardar (Scheduled Caste); Petitioner - Baljeet Singh, respondent No.5 - Harbans Singh and third party Harmesh Singh were considered by the learned Collector for the post of Lambardar. Learned Collector has appointed respondent No.5 as Lambardar of the village. Petitioner, as well as, third party Harmesh Singh filed two appeals before the Divisional Commissioner. Divisional Commissioner in the impugned order has observed as under: In my opinion, the Collector has rightly appointed the respondent as Lambardar as he is sufficiently educated being Matric pass and is a far mature person of 45 years and nothing is adverse against his candidature. On the other hand the appellant Baljit Singh is doing job in Coca Cola factory in day night shift and as such he will not be available in the village and it will definitely cause inconvenience to the residents of the village and the revenue officers as the accessibility of the candidate is of paramount importance. Although, the appellant Harmesh Singh is son of deceased Lambardar but his is totally illiterate persona and it is well settled law that if an educated person is available for the post of Lambardar in comparison to the illiterate person then an educated person has to be given preference for appointment as Lambardar. Moreover, the appellants have failed to explain any demerits of the appointed candidate which could go against him. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
(3.) HON 'ble Apex Court in the matter of Mahavir Singh vs. Khiali Ram and others, reported in : (2009) 3 SCC 439 in paragraph Nos. 20 and 21 has observed as under: - 20. The High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is basically concerned with the correctness of the decision making process and not the merit of the decision. It has not been found by the High Court that the Collector in expressing his opinion as regards comparative merit of the appellant vis -a -vis respondent No. 1 committed an error in his decision making process. The principles of natural justice have been complied with. Procedure laid down in the Rules had also been complied with. It is also not correct to say, as has been contended by Mr. Mahajan that the Collector had not taken into consideration the services rendered by respondent No. 1 to the State. He did acknowledge that respondent No. 1 had rendered the services to the State as a member of the Armed Forces. The Collector also took into consideration that the views of the respectables of the village were in favour of the appellant as also the fact that he had participated in the collection work of the village and helped the government officials at the time of their visit. He furthermore took into consideration the fact that the Naib Tehsildar, Hansi had also recommended his name. Even the Circle Revenue Officer had recommended therefor. 21. It is, therefore, not a case where the finding of the Collector can be said to be perverse. It has also not been established that the said statutory authority while taking a decision failed to take into consideration the relevant factors or based its decision on extraneous considerations or on irrelevant factors not germane therefor.;